debates do come to an end, right?or is db pullin' a filibuster type maneuver?His response to silly photos speaks volumes, he just can't see.And RIGHT ON, downer, I can get down with that.In absence of a student body this session is adjourned.Pop Goes The Verdict!

debates do come to an end, right?or is db pullin' a filibuster type maneuver?His response to silly photos speaks volumes, he just can't see.And RIGHT ON, downer, I can get down with that.In absence of a student body this session is adjourned.Pop Goes The Verdict!

The only answer I have for you brain is to trust your inner Crapdetector...

I desperately need to win something. So I'll just keep posting pics that desperately try to show I'm right, despite the FACT I'm not.

Sorry. I can't be your new Spacebrother.

Then why have you flamed me now for nearly 10+ pages in this thread?

brainpang wrote:

debates do come to an end, right?or is db pullin' a filibuster type maneuver?His response to silly photos speaks volumes, he just can't see.And RIGHT ON, downer, I can get down with that.In absence of a student body this session is adjourned.Pop Goes The Verdict!

Zooropa is certified 2× Platinum in the US by the Recording Industry Association of America, 3× Platinum in Australia, Platinum in the UK, and 4× Platinum in both New Zealand and Canada. To date, it has sold more than 7 million copies.

After the release of record, David Bowie praised the band, writing, "[U2] might be all shamrocks and deutsche marks to some, but I feel that they are one of the few rock bands even attempting to hint at a world which will continue past the next great wall—the year 2000." Although the record was a success, in the years following its release, the group have regarded it with mixed feelings and rarely play its material in live performances. Bono said, "I thought of Zooropa at the time as a work of genius. I really thought our pop discipline was matching our experimentation and this was our Sgt. Pepper. I was a little wrong about that. The truth is our pop disciplines were letting us down. We didn't create hits. We didn't quite deliver the songs. And what would Sgt. Pepper be without the pop songs?" The Edge said that he did not think the songs were "potent", further stating, "I never thought of Zooropa as anything more than an interlude... but a great one, as interludes go. By far our most interesting." Clayton said, "It's an odd record and a favourite of mine."

Neil McCormick wrote about Zooropa, "It feels like a minor work, and generally U2 don't do minor. But if you're not going to make the Big Statement, you're maybe going to come up with something that has the oxygen of pop music." In 1997, Spin wrote, "Zooropa took U2 as far from the monastic mysticism of The Joshua Tree as they could go. It freed U2 from itself." Edna Gundersen of USA Today said in 2002, "the alien territory of Achtung Baby and Zooropa cemented U2's relevance and enhanced its cachet as intrepid explorers". In 2011, Rolling Stone ranked the record at number 61 on its list of "100 Best Albums of the Nineties".

"The songs are not classics but they are more experimental and interesting than classic pop songs. This is something we don't necessarily care to do anymore. We don't go down the road with a piece of music just because it's unusual. That's not enough for us now. We want something that's potent and some of these songs are not particularly potent."—The Edge

Dear Deidre,I never realized that the term "One More Time For The World" and the repetition of the same information (particularly when bold letters are added to create the impression that something positive is being stated, when in fact the "overwhelming" impression is a negative one) would one day appear to me to be insulting. This problem has got so bad that I can no longer listen to "Tryin' To Grow A Chin" by Frank Zappa without feeling faintly uneasy. My family has also turned the words "Disco Boy" into a form of abuse and collectively refuse to listen to "Zoot Allures". How can I get them back on the Zappa track?Signed,Ignored, Potsdam Mittelmark.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Dear Deidre,I never realized that the term "One More Time For The World" and the repetition of the same information (particularly when bold letters are added to create the impression that something positive is being stated, when in fact the "overwhelming" impression is a negative one) would one day appear to me to be insulting. This problem has got so bad that I can no longer listen to "Tryin' To Grow A Chin" by Frank Zappa without feeling faintly uneasy. My family has also turned the words "Disco Boy" into a form of abuse and collectively refuse to listen to "Zoot Allures". How can I get them back on the Zappa track?Signed,Ignored, Potsdam Mittelmark.

Sounds like a question for the "ask cal" thread.

brainpang wrote:

OK, OK! One More Time For The World, it's Judge Wopner at 7:00...just...just chill.

U2 is what the people who run the entertainment business refer to as "schmuck bait".

As a record executive type of guy, you don't want a talented artist who will have too much integrity and too many ideas about what they want to do. Talented, intelligent people are difficult to manipulate and control. What you want are hacks who are not going to rock the boat. Enter U2.

The band members should not be in on the "schmuck bait" thing. They need to be dumb enough to believe that they are very special and gifted, and deserving of mass adulation. This is key in pulling off the scam. The scam is to put forth a really shitty band (bait) just to see how many schmucks you can reel in. Then, you fleece the schmucks. It's good business to feed the masses garbage so you can exploit the ones who come back for more. U2, from day one, was about fleecing the rubes and keeping the music stupid and the fans docile, which is exactly how corporations want the consumers to be. U2 was a great find for the entertainment industry because they actually helped turn people into schmucks by pretending to be great humanitarians. People eat that shit up! The industry also kept many superior bands off the airwaves to help perpetrate the illusion of U2 being the best.

U2 is what the people who run the entertainment business refer to as "schmuck bait".

As a record executive type of guy, you don't want a talented artist who will have too much integrity and too many ideas about what they want to do. Talented, intelligent people are difficult to manipulate and control. What you want are hacks who are not going to rock the boat. Enter U2.

The band members should not be in on the "schmuck bait" thing. They need to be dumb enough to believe that they are very special and gifted, and deserving of mass adulation. This is key in pulling off the scam. The scam is to put forth a really shitty band (bait) just to see how many schmucks you can reel in. Then, you fleece the schmucks. It's good business to feed the masses garbage so you can exploit the ones who come back for more. U2, from day one, was about fleecing the rubes and keeping the music stupid and the fans docile, which is exactly how corporations want the consumers to be. U2 was a great find for the entertainment industry because they actually helped turn people into schmucks by pretending to be great humanitarians. People eat that shit up! The industry also kept many superior bands off the airwaves to help perpetrate the illusion of U2 being the best.

U2 is what the people who run the entertainment business refer to as "schmuck bait".

As a record executive type of guy, you don't want a talented artist who will have too much integrity and too many ideas about what they want to do. Talented, intelligent people are difficult to manipulate and control. What you want are hacks who are not going to rock the boat. Enter U2.

The band members should not be in on the "schmuck bait" thing. They need to be dumb enough to believe that they are very special and gifted, and deserving of mass adulation. This is key in pulling off the scam. The scam is to put forth a really shitty band (bait) just to see how many schmucks you can reel in. Then, you fleece the schmucks. It's good business to feed the masses garbage so you can exploit the ones who come back for more. U2, from day one, was about fleecing the rubes and keeping the music stupid and the fans docile, which is exactly how corporations want the consumers to be. U2 was a great find for the entertainment industry because they actually helped turn people into schmucks by pretending to be great humanitarians. People eat that shit up! The industry also kept many superior bands off the airwaves to help perpetrate the illusion of U2 being the best.

U2 is what the people who run the entertainment business refer to as "schmuck bait".

As a record executive type of guy, you don't want a talented artist who will have too much integrity and too many ideas about what they want to do. Talented, intelligent people are difficult to manipulate and control. What you want are hacks who are not going to rock the boat. Enter U2.

The band members should not be in on the "schmuck bait" thing. They need to be dumb enough to believe that they are very special and gifted, and deserving of mass adulation. This is key in pulling off the scam. The scam is to put forth a really shitty band (bait) just to see how many schmucks you can reel in. Then, you fleece the schmucks. It's good business to feed the masses garbage so you can exploit the ones who come back for more. U2, from day one, was about fleecing the rubes and keeping the music stupid and the fans docile, which is exactly how corporations want the consumers to be. U2 was a great find for the entertainment industry because they actually helped turn people into schmucks by pretending to be great humanitarians. People eat that shit up! The industry also kept many superior bands off the airwaves to help perpetrate the illusion of U2 being the best.

It must be painful to be that incorrect ALL the time?

You probably don't know much about music business, do you?

This coming from someone who can't back up almost ANY of his points to save his life...

Only away for five days and am proud to announce a new addition. Have worked out that there is a approx a 1 in 3 chance of being insulted by Disco Boy in one of his posts since he started posting on the "Ron Paul" thread last year.

Caputh wrote:

Just so we know, here's a list of some of DB's favourite people on the forum, vaguely ranked from the distant to close friends...Sorry if I left anyone out and btw I think everyone on this list is very nice (apart from Isaac)

“Denying reality one step at a time”Arkay (also: the possessor of “EXTREME ignorance regarding things you know little to NOTHING about.” and do[es]n't have a FUCKING clue what [he's] talking about and won't listen to the aforementioned albums [DB] listed...because [he's] afraid [he]'ll find out [DB is] right")

“Can take [his] head out of his ass”Help I’m A Rock (also: wittily referred to as “Help, I Suck Cock”)

“Know[s] Disco Boy is correct but … can't allow himself to admit it publicly.”blsabob23 (also: “purveyor of BS claims” who “may now return to La La Land”)

"Know[s] Disco Boy is right...BUT [he’s] a socialist...so there's NO way in hell [he’s] going to admit [he’s] wrong"Uncle Bernie

“Failed", "failing”PenguininBondage (also: "dictator")

“…have NO fucking clue what they're talking about”balintRingo

"someone who can't back up almost ANY of his points to save his life..."tiboudre

Possibly stupid and unable to readQuilt

Other “forumers who don’t get it”Ed Organus MaximusBuckalos

"Clueless"Mikey

"Nuts. Sorry...“Trendmonger

Should "get laid first" but offers "good ones", so "good for Isaac"Isaac

“Should post more”Baddy

Should “never stop posting”A Rope Leash

“Get[s] on with fantastically ”Kapt. Kiirk

“Gets it”slime.oofytv.set

P.S. If anybody wants me to edit their name out, I will of course be glad to do so...

Edit 1 on this threadAdded: "shit-for-brains" for Plook.

Edit 2Added: Isaac (how could I have forgotten him?) and Mikey. Changed BBP from "bad at English" to "Hypocrite", because I remembered him posting the fact that he thought her language skills were not up to scratch, BBP makes also reference to it, but I can't find the original post, so perhaps my memory is faulty. Also minor punctuation changes.

Edit 3Added: Lots of hyphenated stuff on Plook and two new additions, (balint and Ringo) but from an older source. Also Duchamp has now advanced to (fucking) "idiot" and HJ who is now like Caputh.

Edit 4Added: PIB is now officially a "Dictator", some all new insults for Plook who is advancing up the charts, closely followed By DM, as well as a nice line in collective insults which now head the page.Mind you, he's given it a rest for over 24 hours, now...

Edit 5 Welcome tiboudre! Also added nice ones for Arkay and Downer.Also asterisked those who DB is now ignoring.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Thank you! I guess my admiration for Ron Paul's monetary policy wasn't enough to keep me off the list. Oh well. By the way, the Vancouver Canucks are going to get pounded this year now that they're in the same conference as L.A., Anaheim and San Jose.

How to turn a thread into an argument about U2 (currently continuing unabated on the What Are You Listening To" thread).

Note, in particular, the repeated use of the term "strictly" (largely unused by the repliers to his posts) and the evolution in semantics coupled with hypnotic repetition.

1.

Disco Boy wrote:

U2 never really made music that was considered "pop" until 2000. For example, listen to Achtung Baby (1991), Zooropa (1993) & Pop (1997) and then come back and tell me that the three aforementioned albums are "pop" music. Trust me, you'll be quite shocked...because these albums are some of the most innovative and experimental of the '90s...

= Before the year 2000, U2 hardly made any pop music at all.

2.

Disco Boy wrote:

...as I've already stated, U2 hasn't really been a "pop" group until recently.

=Only recently have U2 been making pop music

3.

Disco Boy wrote:

NOTHING sounded like '90s U2. That would more than likely mean they were innovative. Or at the very least, experimental. And certainly NOT "pop", at least during this particular era.

= They were truly a cutting edge, experimental band prior to the year 2000.

4.

Disco Boy wrote:

the particular definition of "disposable" you were utilizing, is just as subjective as the word "subjective" is when discussing one's own personal tastes. This is especially true of you, since you think U2 is strictly a pop band. This confirms, at least to me, that you don't know U2's music from a hole in a wall...

= You are wrong if you think U2 only plays pop music.

5.

Downer Mydnyte wrote:

With Or Without You qualifies as "pop" to most of us. I mean "poop".

Disco Boy wrote:

That's one song.

=Hardly any of their material prior to 2000 with the exception of "Without You" was pop music.

6.

Disco Boy wrote:

you STILL think U2 is strictly a pop band. They aren't. So, who's the loser again?

=You're wrong if you think that U2 made exclusively pop music.

7.

Quote:

Bono:"I thought of Zooropa at the time as a work of genius. I really thought our pop discipline was matching our experimentation and this was our Sgt. Pepper. I was a little wrong about that. The truth is our pop disciplines were letting us down. We didn't create hits. We didn't quite deliver the songs. And what would Sgt. Pepper be without the pop songs?"

Downer Mydnyte wrote:

I'm not sure who to believe here. Disco Boy or Bono?

Disco Boy wrote:

I'm not sure who to laugh at more, you or the other two? Tell me where Bono said U2 strictly made pop music during this period? And tell me how Bono stating U2 has a "pop discipline" has to do with strictly writing pop songs?

= It would be wrong to say that U2 only wrote pop songs.

8.

Disco Boy wrote:

I've ALWAYS maintained that up until 2000, U2 were NOT strictly a pop band.

= Strictly speaking, before 2000 U2 were not really a pop group

9.

Disco Boy wrote:

Several people claimed U2 were strictly a pop band. I then chimed in and EXPLICITLY showed them why they were INCORRECT.

=Other people wrongly claimed that U2 only made pop music. DB proved them wrong.

10.

Disco Boy wrote:

The POINT is that U2 were NEVER strictly a pop band. Whereas, you guys thought they were.

=U2, throughout their entire history, cannot be described exclusively as a conventional pop group, they experimented, too. Everybody who thought they never experimented was wrong.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

You know things are getting good when disco trots out the photo of the love of his life (again: you should be so lucky). And if disco wants this to end, all he has to do is STOP and it goes away. But he can’t help himself, it’s part of his rainmanesque character.

The earliest rumblings/defense of U2 from disco (note arrogance):Sept 3:"I don't think you realize how incredibly ignorant your above statement is. Not only since the word "disposable" is too subjective, but also because U2 never really made music that was considered "pop" until 2000."

And then for some reason, on sept 7, disco changed his tune to:

"This is especially true of you, since you think U2 is strictly a pop band. This confirms, at least to me, that you don't know U2's music from a hole in a wall..."

This is the birth of the STRICTLY trope, otherwise known as discos conceit, or is that deceit? NO ONE said u2 was strictly a pop band -- ONLY disco claimed we did, after he himself claimed they never really did pop until 2000. Realizing this slip was terribly inaccurate, disco had to invent a new framework, because as we all know u2 DID do pop prior to 2000, including on the bloated pop-sensible Achtung Baby. And we all know that it is their POP SENSIBILITY that has rocketed them to stardom.

I pestered him about this STRICTLY nonsense multiple times, which he was always resistant to, treating as gospel HIS interpretation of my/others comments.

For the record, the only reason I keep this up is because I don't like the way disco conducts himself . I really, really, really don't give a damn about u2 and I really don't care about winning/losing/whatever on a stupid forum that no one in their right mind would take seriously.

What always fascinates me is DB's technique of repeating the same mantra. Thereby a new meaning is created that, although somewhat divorced from his original meaning, contains the same lexical components. Thus, in his own mind, he has not shifted from his original position by one iota.

Plus, as Goebbels pointed out, by repeating the same stuff over and over again, someone will believe you sooner or later.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

I think you all chased him off, that took like over a year...when we got ride of that other quack (Sabre Tooth Fairy/ Hobo Stuff & Baby Stuff/ and he had one other account name I can't remeber) it took a good 6 months...the difference is that guy was full of shit from the get go, DB used to be ok until he went on the Tea Bagger Rand is Ron rant...

You know things are getting good when disco trots out the photo of the love of his life (again: you should be so lucky). And if disco wants this to end, all he has to do is STOP and it goes away. But he can’t help himself, it’s part of his rainmanesque character.

The earliest rumblings/defense of U2 from disco (note arrogance):Sept 3:"I don't think you realize how incredibly ignorant your above statement is. Not only since the word "disposable" is too subjective, but also because U2 never really made music that was considered "pop" until 2000."

And then for some reason, on sept 7, disco changed his tune to:

"This is especially true of you, since you think U2 is strictly a pop band. This confirms, at least to me, that you don't know U2's music from a hole in a wall..."

This is the birth of the STRICTLY trope, otherwise known as discos conceit, or is that deceit? NO ONE said u2 was strictly a pop band -- ONLY disco claimed we did, after he himself claimed they never really did pop until 2000. Realizing this slip was terribly inaccurate, disco had to invent a new framework, because as we all know u2 DID do pop prior to 2000, including on the bloated pop-sensible Achtung Baby. And we all know that it is their POP SENSIBILITY that has rocketed them to stardom.

I pestered him about this STRICTLY nonsense multiple times, which he was always resistant to, treating as gospel HIS interpretation of my/others comments.

For the record, the only reason I keep this up is because I don't like the way disco conducts himself . I really, really, really don't give a damn about u2 and I really don't care about winning/losing/whatever on a stupid forum that no one in their right mind would take seriously.

The ONLY contradiction regarding my above quoted statements is in your delusional mind.

Arkay and yourself claimed U2 were never more than just a pop band, despite the FACT you haven't heard most of their albums. I claimed the opposite and presented PROOF backing my shit up. My criteria did NOT change. Whereas, YOU tried to change the criteria by bringing musical taste into it, you hypocritical weasel. You lost the debate. And now you're whining like a little girl about it. This is getting incredibly pathetic. Get over yourself...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum